The League Media

[RugbyFuture]

also remember that Rugby in France was actually FIRA and not the IRFB, completely different organisations until the truce was called in the 90's Rugby has benefited from all that vichy stuff but it was being run by a completely different organisation ala leagues splitoff.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It's funny that you equate the move which has been the catalyst behind any prosperity that rugby has had, as the day it went downhill.

Without SANZAR and Pay TV Australian rugby would be bringing in similar profits to the amateur days, allowing for increases in line with inflation anyway.

 

[Braveheart81]

That's a pretty difficult post to comment on because your alternative path to rugby greatness is entirely hypothetical.

You're saying that Australian Rugby went backwards the day it went professional and then suggested that a professional competition only involving Australian and NZ teams would have caused world rugby to change the laws of the game to whatever laws they were using because it would have been awesome.

 

[Slim 293]

And if we applied the NRC laws to rugby back in the day the whole world would've lifted us on their shoulders and cheered?

 

[Braveheart81]

And if we applied the NRC laws to rugby back in the day the whole world would've lifted us on their shoulders and cheered?

Morgan Freeman would have played Jim Williams in the movie instead of Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon would have played Tim Horan.

 

[terry j]

thankyou for taking the time to show us.

Matt Giteau's $1.4m offer shows why union is putting league in the shade
The headline, infers league is falling behind. Obviously we don't know what in but definitely a negative inference.

Of course we know 'what in', money paid for the top dollar player. It is clear from the article that what is being discussed is 'how much is payed to the top guys'. Do you disagree that the top league dollars are falling behind the top rugby dollars if this offer is true?

After all, that is what the phrase 'put in the shade' means.

That is, that whatever the outcry at the time, it showed that the genuinely global nature of rugby will always be able to generate much more money for the elite players than the mostly Sydney suburban game of league.
Whether or not you believe it to be true or not, the comparison is again meant to draw a negative inference regarding the size and scope of rugby league.

Or, it is merely pointing out (no matter how good the product) the fact that a regional 'power' will find it hard to match a 'power' international in scope?

Let us re-phrase it, do you think it possible that league here will be able to offer players (anytime soon at least) 1.4 million per year? (whatever the figure was).

If the answer is no, then there is not much to dispute is there.

So I'll ask again. If you were guiding a seriously good 18-year-old footballer and had the choice of steering him to union or league, where would you steer him?
Parra or Paris?

Again you might believe its true, fair enough, but it doesn't make it any less negative towards rugby league in what it is trying to infer.

Just because wording isn't direct the inferences are pretty clear.

I'll do a peter fitz and ask YOU again, if you were the agent for seriously good 18-year-old footballer would you be negligent in your duties if you did not see what opportunities are available to maximise the return for your client?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yes the removal of Rugby League in France is sad IMO and was evil by Rugby administrators. Rugby here is copping similar treatment from a media and perception POV, obviously its analogous but not the same.

IMO Rugby here went downhill the day it joined SANZAR and started playing teams from SA that no one knows about.

Imagine if say, they had the vision to create the NRC in '96 as the premier Rugby comp here with all our pro players, and basically say to NZ well look kents we've got this comp you join up if you want with some of your bigger NPC sides, promotion relegation style.

The result would have been a beautiful running rugby competition, genuine history and rivalry, sufficient product & growth, money, etc.

We play under the NRC rules, fans vote with their feet, people love it, fans demand the IRB adopt the rules, bingo world Rugbys problems are solved.

If we could have an administration with a bit of vision that would be great.

Just imagine a trans-tasman national competition with all of those Rugby areas involved that have such history and tradition for the game. Then we play NZ in a 3 game, 3 week Bledisloe Cup series on Wednesday nights two weeks after the Trans-Tasman Cup (the cup for our provincial rugby sides).

Instead we have a plastic Super Rugby competition where we play plastic teams in the middle of the night on pay television in plastic boring games of football that are all about kicking the ball away.


For all the counter argument with papabear he has made a few points. If only the two Rugby codes where administrated properly ala AFL.

It wasn't just League that was banned under the Vichy French. It was all professional sport. It suits the League narrative that it one them and only them by that simply isn't true.

 

[mxyzptlk]

...and then suggested that a professional competition only involving Australian and NZ teams would have caused world rugby to change the laws of the game to whatever laws they were using because it would have been awesome.

The funny thing is, when Super Rugby expands again, it looks like Australia and New Zealand will in in a conference pretty much on their own. So you'll end up with something like what spikhaza is counterfactually imagining.

 

[Slim 293]

Let's not forget that if we didn't have SANZAR we would've had Packer's rebel SANZAR equivalent.............. and god knows how that would've turned out?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The SANZAR option was the least worst of all of the them 1995, particularly when you consider Packer's World Rugby Corp knocking on the door. Take a look at "Stealing Rugby", the doco narrated by Peter Fitzsimons of a few years ago. All things considered we took the right path. Doesn't mean it's perfect (look at the issues the pro game has in Europe), but had we not gone this way as a game the alternative might have been a *lot* worse.

Remember also that we already had Super rugby in the amateur days -- it's just that the pro era has expanded it.

 

[Pfitzy]

Not so sure about that - the WRC was an interesting concept at the time, with a goal of truly expanding rugby globally. There are too many variables to predict its success or failure.

The establishment put through a LOT of scare tactics work to get everyone to agree to stick with what they had. Australia just kind of got dragged along with it in effect, and that's why our administration is crap.

I was talking to a couple of league mates at work. After a fairly good period leading into the TV rights deal, they're now getting a bit disillusioned with going to games that cost more than they used to and don't deliver an atmosphere. Mainly the issue is the move away from local grounds to putting so many games on at ANZ.

The big fixtures are OK there but 13,000 isn't much fun.

Will be interesting to see what the new Foxtel pricing does to attendance across all sports. Why pay $20 a head to take the family to 1 game when you can pay $50 and see all of them?

leagueunlimited forums

Fuck. The irony is so delicious I could cut it with a steak knife.

 

[papabear]

Terry, I appreciate you agree with a lot of what Fitzys article had to say. The truth or otherwise of the main points of the article does not detract from it still implying negatively about the strength and scope of the rugby league game in general.

 

[papabear]

For you workingclassrugger.

http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/index.php/2010/01/the-forgotten-game-a-french-tragedy/

A mention of other sports being banned aswell.

 

[terry j]

Terry, I appreciate you agree with a lot of what Fitzys article had to say. The truth or otherwise of the main points of the article does not detract from it still implying negatively about the strength and scope of the rugby league game in general.

Yes, you are right in that (as you pointed out earlier in the thread) *we* tend to let thru our mental filters what we agree with, and react only to what we don't agree with.

As that is true, I can also see how it would be a bit negative from your POV. So apologies if I came down a bit hard on you.

However I do stand by my observation that (as the points he raise are 'true') it does not quite fit into the same category of negativity being discussed in this thread, namely the use of misleading, incorrect data or blatant lies.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Terry, I appreciate you agree with a lot of what Fitzys article had to say. The truth or otherwise of the main points of the article does not detract from it still implying negatively about the strength and scope of the rugby league game in general.

that's what made it readable, unlike the rest of his writings

 

[terry j]

Terry, I appreciate you agree with a lot of what Fitzy had to say.

I must admit at first I was totally confused by what you had to say.

what? me agree with what he had to say?

Then of course the penny dropped, you meant Peter Fitzsimons.

See, at first I thought you meant Pfitzy. No-one ever agrees with anything he says.

 

[wamberal]

See, at first I thought you meant Pfitzy. No-one ever agrees with anything he says.

I think it would be also fair to say that FitzSimons does write a fair bit of tripe, amongst the good stuff.

Matt Giteau to earn $1.4 mill for ONE season means the end of the other code? I don't think so.

Wake me up when the Froggies sign a few current NRL stars of the ilk of Inglis or (fill in your own name here - I am not all that au fait with the other code) at the height of their career.

 

[spikhaza]

The funny thing is, when Super Rugby expands again, it looks like Australia and New Zealand will in in a conference pretty much on their own. So you'll end up with something like what spikhaza is counterfactually imagining.

Yes and that's going to be a great result. Those Kiwi teams are recognizable and we have a connection and rivalry with them. I don't mind playing the Boks who are a great team with lots of history etc but I think us playing their provincial sides (in non finals) is really a nothing event that doesn't rate on television nor pull crowds.

I hear today that the administrators have moved away from Singapore as the other license, again good, that was the dumbest idea ever.

All in all Aus Rugby taking good steps since Pulver took over that will take us forward in the long term. The NRC doing a good job of player development.

Unfortunately Aus Rugby will always be in a situation where we have all our profit eggs in one basket - the Wobblies. If they are in a golden era ala early 2000s there is no one that will stop us. You could fill a 110,000 seat stadium, 1.5 million watching around the country etc. It's the same with the NRL in Brisbane.

 

[Sully]

The problem with league players going to French rugby is that out of the 23 positions there are 6 they will never play. Another 4 or 5 they are extremely unlikely to play and a couple more they might play after a season or two. Which leaves you with wings, centres and fullbacks. It's hard to fit the whole nrl into just those positions.

 

[terry j]

I think it would be also fair to say that FitzSimons does write a fair bit of tripe, amongst the good stuff.

Matt Giteau to earn $1.4 mill for ONE season means the end of the other code? I don't think so.

Wake me up when the Froggies sign a few current NRL stars of the ilk of Inglis or (fill in your own name here - I am not all that au fait with the other code) at the height of their career.

It might be just that, tripe, dunno myself (which is why I covered my arse with 'if true'. I wouldn't know one way or the other)

However, I'm only responding to say that on rugby HQ they repeated the same story. Did they lift it straight (without checking facts) from fitzsimons??

again, dunno.